In November, voters in California approved a ballot measure raising the top rate on income over $1 million to 13.3% (the increase applies retroactively to last year). ... Mr. Woods grossed $56.4 million in 2012. As a Floridian, he will keep about $7.5 million that he otherwise would have owed to the state of California. His net tax savings over his 16-year career come to about $100 million. Mr. Mickelson last year earned $60.7 million. Paying the 13.3% California rate, he will owe the state $8 million.

That takes Mickelson down to $52.7 million, putting him behind Woods, when he was ahead of him on the money list. Aggravating! (I know, I'm failing to take account of the way state taxes are a deduction on your federal income taxes and everything else that affects after-tax income.)

The benefit of living in a state without an income tax can be diminished by the "jock tax" that states impose on money earned by athletes when they're playing or training in the state. (Luckily for baseball players, spring training is in no-tax Florida or low-tax Arizona.) But in sports like tennis and golf where athletes can train anywhere in the world, a preponderance happen to migrate to states without an income tax.

These celebs — with their endorsements — need good PR, as the Mickelson slip proved. State tax proponents could get proactive and actively shame the sports stars who live in Florida without an adequate cover story.

For instance, Serena and Venus Williams grew up in Compton, Calif., but moved with their father to Florida in the early 1990s.

198 comments:

It's the same reason VT and NH went so Lefty. All those "concerned, empathetic Liberals" finally were honest with themselves and realized the old saw, "there's no such thing as a poor white Liberal" isn't any more racist than they are.

What I don't understand: From somewhere I got the impression that athletes in leagues paid income tax on where they earned the money: i.e. if they played 50 percent of their games in NYC they paid NY and NYC taxes on 50 percent of their income, meanwhile paying prorata shares on the games in CA, etc. If that's true, then why isn't the same true for golfers?

In Response to Bill Hershaw:There are only a few cities/states that tax you when you work there. I know New York City is one of them, in that when I work there I have to file taxes in NYC, even if I only work there 1 day. It is not a state tax only the city taxes me. I believe that Philly aslo has this type of system. DC proposes this type of "commuter tax" every few years, but it gets shot down.

I don't see how anyone can blame him if he does. Why should anyone NOT take steps to miminize the taxes they pay? It's folly not to. If someone were to tell me to pay more taxes, I would straight up ask them for their complete tax returns for the past 10 years.

MYOB are wonderful acronyms. It's too bad we don't have Dear Abby around any more to say it more often.

I've read similar things, Bill. From what I understand, when a pro athletes travel to another state, they have to pay income taxes to that state. Where it gets complicated is determining what percentage of their income gets taxed. For example, the NFL regular season is 16 games with half being at home. For those 8 road games, they'd have to pay taxes to the host state. However, does one game represent 16th of their income? Does the preseason count? What about spring training? I'm sure they've worked all of this out but I honestly don't know the specifics.

I'm sure golf and tennis operate the same way, with the added complication of many tournaments being overseas. They may have more control over which tournaments they play in but I imagine their taxes get real complicated. Consider that 19 year old woman who beat Serina Williams last week at the Australian Open quarter finals (wife is a big tennis fan). I read she got a $500,000 (AUS or US?) paycheck. How much of that does she have to pay to Australia, how much to the US and, depending on where she lives, to her home state? While that's a problem I'd like to have, I don't envy her accounting team trying to make sense of so many sets of tax laws.

All this "shaming" of fat people, smokers, people who move due to state taxes, gun-owners, etc. by progs will at some point piss off everyone who isn't a prog. Many of these non-progs vote Democrat and are not conservatives or Republicans.

If you win a tournament in FL, but you reside in CA, you don't owe FL income taxes (because they have none), but you still owe CA income taxes. Generally, the tax structure of the state wherein you reside apply to all income, but income taxes paid to other states are tax credits.

U.S. currency once was worth more than Canadian. Canadian taxes were also higher.

While not the only factor, it played a key role in a number of Canadian NHL teams moving to the U.S. Canadian teams had two-strikes against them with regard to player contracts. It also put Canadian NBA and MLB teams at a financial disadvantage -- it was a major factor in free agency.

For superstars, the key is endorsement income. If you play for the Yankees, at least half of your baseball income will be subject to state income tax. If you choose to live in Florida during the offseason (for at least half the year), you can shelter your endorsement income from Albany.

What would any sane person do? If someone says they are going to take 13% of your income and burn it just because you voluntarily live inside an imaginary line, and they will continue to do it every year with the inevitable result of needing even more in the future, are you gonna say: "Sounds like a good plan."?

Yes, everyone knows lots of high income earners want to leave states with high incomes and, in fact, many do.

Yet this knowledge has no effect whatsoever.

The liberal Democrats' appetite to cannibalize the economy with punitive taxes is insatiable, and immune to logic and self-interest - just like Obama's stated position on increasing capital gains taxes even though doing so would be economically stupid, but his (and his voters) sense of fairness required it.

So, as a digression: The taxes are being raised, but the real question is whether it will truly produce additional revenue. Or will it simply drive those earners out of the state, along with the athletes?

It's not too hard a question to answer, especially given what we're seeing now. And have seen in the past.

Entrepreneurs and businessmen are fleeing California. Despite the huge in-migration trends, the state's population remains fairly stable because of the influx of Hispanic immigrants. What happens when the Golden Goose stops laying eggs and the state is left a broke Third World mess?

It is most interesting that he can be shamed, and is getting bad PR, for not wanting to pay 60-60% of his income in taxes.

When did this become shameful or bad PR? Answer, a long time ago. This is not the country it once was.

At 20% of his whole income he'd be paying way more than his family's fair share. How much more gov't do they use than the average schlub? Maybe less, if they send their kids to private school, etc.

It should be just ordinary to say that you don't want the gov't to take 65% of your income and give it to other people. It's not, and that tells you alot of bad things about the country now. It's a different country than the once great one it once was.

The city’s hedge-fund executives are flying south — and it’s not for vacation.

An increasing number of financial firms, especially private equity and hedge funds, are fed up with New York’s sky-high city and state tax rates and are relocating to the business-friendly climate in Florida’s Palm Beach County.

But in France, at least he gets something for it. California wastes nearly all it's tax revenue. The infrastructure is a mess, and when things get tough, the first things they cut are the things people enjoy and need. Public employees' pay and benefits are sucking everything dry. My state is limping, and terminally ill, and it believes in the equivalent of new age medicine to cure it.

I have no option but to get out, I'm just struggling to figure out how to do it without hurting anyone who needs me.

I'm really curious to see how bad things have to get before the silly people of California wise up. Due to the demographics, and how they are shifting, I think it will get very ugly first. A lot of people refuse to blame the appropriate mechanism and people for the problems. That's true everywhere, but that mindset is the vast majority here. An overwhelming majority in a one party state. The perfect storm.

Of course not, but they desperately need his money, and the jobs provided by people in his tax bracket. It's just stupid to believe this doesn't matter when the overwhelming share of your tax revenue comes from people like that.

You are right, Garage, no one does give a shit about pampered millionaires like Mickelson. The left, however, wants to grab as much of his money as possible, for the government. By trying to grab too much of it, they've denied themselves just about all of what they were trying to get.

That we have no ability to alter our behavior when they continue to impose draconian laws.

That their cherished projections of ownership and entitlement won't ever change.

They are always surprised when their best laid and not thought out plans gang aft agley. Yet they always double down on stupid and do more.

As I said yesterday in the Global Warming thread. People are not rooted like trees. They can MOVE. And those with means, especially, can and will move. Self preservation is not something to be criticized: it is to be applauded.

I'm sure it will be great for CA if they manage to chase away all of their successful people. Then, they'd be left only with those who care about each other, and wouldn't have to deal with those greedy rich bastards.

And while the WSJ article is behind a wall, I only read part of it, Stockton CA to get out of bankruptcy is also trying to get out of those obligations.

See, Wisconsin, what suckers you are?

#2 in the country in pension funding, because you saved and scrimped and didn't spend like a drunken congressman seeking out underage Thai prostitutes for the children, and now you're gonna pick up the slack for all those irresponsible spendthrift blue staters, but who needs spending limits when they have the others to bail them out?

Actually, the story of athletes moving their permanent residences to Florida is an old story.

We've already heard a lot about the Florida residences of Michael Jordan (ex-Illinois), LeBron James (ex-Ohio), and Derek Jeter (ex-New York). All of these guys fight like hell to make certain of the details of their domiciles.

But what about non-athlete high-earners? WHERE IS BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN'S DOMICILE? WHERE IS MADONNA DOMICILED? WHERE IS TOMMY LEE JONES DOMICILED? WHERE IS, OR WAS, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG DOMICILED?

The common locale for all of the above is Wellington, Florida (Palm Beach County).

garage mahal said...At least Garage is open and honest in his contempt for makers.

Man Boobs gets paid millions of dollars for playing golf. Now he's off to live in a castle in Palm Beach. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for this guy again?

You're not.You're supposed to encourage the creation of more people like him so that they'll move to your low income tax state so they'll spend and invest in your low income tax state.Rich people create jobs. You don't.

"Pampered, man boobed millionaires" is also an apt description of the Williams sisters, but Garage gives them a pass.....I wonder if the Williams sisters publicly spoke up against the unfair burden of heavy taxes, would they be celebrated as heroes the way Ali was when he resisted the draft or Curt Flood was for fighting the reserve clause. Probably not. They'd get a worse press than Ray Lewis or Michal Vick.

the only thing Mickelson did wrong was to apologize.I think his tour peers are mostly on the same page as they are all independent contractors. I've always liked him- he is good to the fans, esp kids and he KNOWS that his good fortune is due to the fans.No entity should be able to take more than 25% of your labor- I'd be fine with a flat tax and very few to no deductions.

Well hell if you had grown up in Compton California, you would have moved out of there ASAP. In the 1940's and 50's Compton was a fairly white bread California suburb. It then became virtually all black (which is when Venus and Serena were born). It was a rough, tough town. The courthouse in Compton was referred to as "Fort Compton" by the local district attorneys who served there. Time has moved on, and now Latino gangs are taking over Compton---and driving the blacks out with threats and beatings.

If you had the brains of any oyster--and the financial wherewithal to do it--you'd move out of Compton.

"Why is Mickelson bringing this up now?... Did Mickelson not know he was paying high taxes in the 1990s?"

I can explain this since, I lived here all that time too.

In the 90s' taxes were also high, but the place was decent and growing, with good infrastructure and an opposition party to keep things in check.

Now after taxing decades of high taxes, and indirectly raising the costs of everything, the state is completely broken. The thing most disparaging is that the very people who caused all this are more entrenched in power than ever and with no opposition at all. Jerry Brown is the damned Governor AGAIN!

It's the difference between supporting your 17 year old, and then later realizing he's 40, and you're re still supporting him.

When will California be shamed in to cutting its excessive spending on pension benefits, etc. If I were these guys, I'd try to shame California into balancing its budget and getting spending under control.

That’s great for Phil Mickelson that he’s moving, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. There aren’t enough high income taxpayers in California as it is, and the federal government is going to bail out the State of California sooner or later. We’re all going to be paying for Democrat mistakes on the Left Coast. T’was always thus.

Anecdotal I know but......in November we took a trip to Nevada (Reno and surrounding areas). We hadn't been to the Virginia City area for a couple of years. While driving through the winding back roads we were stunned by the proliferation of GINORMOUS HUGE MANSIONS built and being built on the hillsides. I don't mean just big houses. We are talking an 8 car garage on the foundation and two or even three stories above the garage. 5000 square feet if they were an inch.

New golf course and gated communities in some places. The 'horse country' area between Reno and Carson City is now sporting huge spreads 40 to 80 acres, fenced in beautiful white or stone built fencing with Mediterranean style block built and stuccoed horse barns that have air- conditioned horse trailers parked along side. The caretaker's 'cottages' rival anything built in the Santa Barbara area for style and size. 2500 sq ft at least. We can tell they are the caretaker's or guest 'cottages' because the main houses are three to four times as large.

Where are all of these people and this construction coming from, we asked? California.

If there are no buyers for your products or services you aren't hiring anybody, no matter how rich you are. There is this bizarre theory on the right that the wealthy in this country create jobs based on their tax rates. Or, how nice we are to them in comment section on the internet.

Garage, you can look at any population in history who prospered, and you will not see a bunch of equal people collectively growing. It's always done by the exceptions, who have a little more of something that they then parlay into the power to employ people who yes, then of course create more jobs with their demand, but your idea of workers just building something from scratch is a fantasy. Even the Borg had a head bitch. Get over it.

As for tax rates, how do explain away that fact that the extra money I send this year to fund California's public pensions (people not working) will prevent me from hiring people who will build things and get off the welfare rolls?

Some employers will just move their operations off shore, because of taxes, but that has no effect on jobs here right?

The taxes that American employers pay are equivalent to a subsidy to their foreign competitors. Now if that money was wisely used, it would have some return to Americans, but when it's used to pay people for not working or reimburse investors with bad ideas, then it's just a multiplier effect on the negative side.

Much of the market that I work in didn't even exist until we created it. Not some collective of workers. A couple guys with a dream, some ideas, and one guy with a small trust fund from his father's success. Since those days, hundred of direct employees and thousands of indirect ones have been "created".

Phil Mickelson has earned his income. You may cry "foul" because he's just a golfer and not a noble bricklayer, but guess what? The market doesn't care. It pays what is demanded ... nothing more, nothing less.

Garbage is a pigmy. I'm a pigmy too. Difference being that I appreciate giants and Mickelson is a giant in his field. He started off with no more talent than ten thousand other guys and yet today he ranks in the top ten players worldwide while the ten thousand others are still duffers, like me. How'd he do it? Incredible persistence at mastering a task which can't ever totally be mastered and therefore must be practiced practiced practiced at for a lifetime. It's like the pianist at Carnegie Hall who ain't garbage and ain't me, he's at Carnegie Hall because of incredible monumental persistence added to a touch of talent. I appreciate that. garbage isn't CAPABLE of appreciating it, the poor deprived schmuck.

I guess that explains your complete lack of any concept of how an economy works, fiscal policy, or market valuation.

Teachers are not some special noble class. Their job is massively subsidized and over valued in many (but not all) municipalities. Neither are doctors, in my case lawyers, or any other profession. Some jobs require a higher level of specialization and knowledge (only tangentially related to formal education by the way). The only specialized knowledge it seems to take to be a public school teachers is the ability to indoctrinate students and pay union dues.

Mickelson on the other hand, is not only an incredibly gifted golfer, but he is all the more rare due to his left handedness. His income is not subsized through government compulsion, instead being freely entered into exchanges.

The difference you see here is that the liberal and the conservative would both try to reduce their taxes if they could, but the good liberal with us just lies about it, or he always sends in more than he's required to, just on principle. Which do you guess it is?

Phil gets paid millions of dollars a year for being one of the best and most successful performers in his area of expertise which happens to be of great interest to hundreds of millions of fans worldwide.

I mean, it's not like he's an affirmative action figure like obama who is just given nobels for being "not someone else".

garage: "Now he's off to live in a castle in Palm Beach. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for this guy again?"

Uh, you weren't. And no one said you should.

Given your political outlook, I can see why it's necessary for you to continue to create strawmen everywhere you go. It would be alot harder if you were to actually address reality.

He's not whining about it. Rodgers appears to me humble and grateful for his opportunity.

Seriously, if Mickelson wants to pay less taxes he should try working as a groundskeeper and see how he likes it. I did that work for a few years and it really isn't a picnic. I picked fucking rocks off fairways for an entire summer on a muny course before it opened. It would probably give Mickelson some much needed perspective.

This is something I never understood. Why the envy?He didn't take anything from someone else to get rich. He got there on his own merits.It's like the lefties think he's taking money from their own pocket.Envy is a terrible emotion.

garage: "Seriously, if Mickelson wants to pay less taxes he should try working as a groundskeeper and see how he likes it. I did that work for a few years and it really isn't a picnic. I picked fucking rocks off fairways for an entire summer on a muny course before it opened. It would probably give Mickelson some much needed perspective."

LOL

So there it is. Because garage is incompetent and incapable of achieving much, he is really pissed at Phil's success!

Just think of all the plumbers, electricians, framers, cabinetmakers, tilesetters, painters, glaziers, sheetrock tapers, surveyors, architects and others employed to build that castle, and more of the same plus houskeepers, decorators and landscapers employed to maintain and furnish it.

Rusty: "It's like the lefties think he's taking money from their own pocket."

Keeping the fruits of your own labors IS considered "taking money from other" for the lefties.

It has always been that way.

Garage wants his share of what Phils hard work and success has yielded and he and his pals won't stop pushing till them get themselves alot more of that sweet sweet "obama-phone" free stuff, all funded by the phils of the world.

And the funniest part of it?

garage and his pals won't even think to say, "hey thanks for paying for my free stuff...."

"Seriously, if Mickelson wants to pay less taxes he should try working as a groundskeeper and see how he likes it."

He doesn't have to. He's almost mastered a game that eludes most, and is paid handsomely for it, no matter what you think.

" I did that work for a few years and it really isn't a picnic. I picked fucking rocks off fairways for an entire summer on a muny course before it opened."

Oh, so it's all about you and what YOU did. You're Inga-ing here, and it's not persuasive.

"It would probably give Mickelson some much needed perspective."

How do you know he lacks perspective? Because he doesn't like paying that much in taxes? He lives in California — a state notorious for their overzealous taxation policies and their terrible record of fruitless spending. Maybe he'd like to move to a state where his tax dollars, although lower, actually have an effect on helping his fellow man.

Regardless of Mickelson's top rates, his actual tax bill isn't anywhere near one-half of his income. While it's hard to tell what the golfer really pays without seeing his tax returns, millionaires pay roughly 26% of their income in federal taxes, on average, according to William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation.

Mickelson has over $40 million a year in earned income. I don't know what his capital gains are, but I doubt it's anywhere near that high.

He's probably paying over 40% in effective income taxes to the state and federal government.

The only knock against Mickelson is that he should have moved out of California 20 years ago. Tiger's not only a much better golfer, he's much better about taxes. Although Phil didn't pay his ex-wife over $100 million. So it's a wash.

garage's own link: "Regardless of Mickelson's top rates, his actual tax bill isn't anywhere near one-half of his income. While it's hard to tell what the golfer really pays without seeing his tax returns,..."

So let me get this straight:

1) These Tax Foundation guys cannot assert that it's "impossible" for Phil to be paying half his income in taxes, they still have no problem asserting that he isn't.

2) Garage, a demonstrated economics buffoon then feels confident to claim that Phil doesn't understand his own tax liability!

LOL

I'm sure Phil and his tax attorneys know full well what his tax liability is since they are ones who sign and prepare (respectively) those very same tax forms and write the checks!

But no, that can't be because "average" millionaires don't pay that much.

WEA (Wisconsin's primary teacher union) published on their website what was required to make one's primary state of residence one other than Wisconsin. The idea was to be able to "live" in a state with no sales tax.

BDNYC:"What happens when the Golden Goose stops laying eggs and the state is left a broke Third World mess?"

They will appeal to the Federal government to bail them out, claiming that the rest of the country has benefitted from the things that California has done. They will also play the "oh these poor people, they'll starve if you don't give us money for them" bit.

"Ordinary people with money in their pocket are the real job creators."

Not really. Yes, they are somewhat necessary, but they don't create wealth, and that is part of why progressive economics is a failure, and Krugman is an idiot. Taking money out of the pocket of the makers and giving it to the takers doesn't create wealth, but rather, squanders it, to some e3xtent. Yes, they create demand, but we have seen over the last 4 years just how well Keynesian style demand stimulus has worked, or rather, hasn't, given the longest recovery since FDR's very similar unsuccessful attempts to recover through demand stimulus. Didn't work for FDR, and isn't working any better for his disciple, Obama.

Innovation and efficiency is how wealth is created. And, one of the things that keeping money in the hands of the rich is that they can, and often to, put it to much better use than the government can and does. You have one person making the investment decisions, instead of a bunch of government functionaries, compounded by the political aspects of their investment decisions - which we have seen means that political connections mean much more than having a viable business plan when the government is handing out investment cash (or guaranteeing loans, which in the long run is essentially the same thing). You need to look no further than the DOE "green energy" program to see this in action.

So, one thing that keeping the money in the hands of those who earned it is that they are better at investing it than the government is. Much better, since it is their own money.

Another part of this though is on the incentive side. Many of the greatest innovations of our lifetimes started in people's garages, or the like. They often risked everything, on the small chance that they might succeed, but if they did, they would get a large payoff. Taxing that "windfall" at exorbitant rates reduces their potential payoffs, and thus, their incentive to risk everything. Might as well work for the government than take the chance of of starting your own business, because the pay is good, and the pension even better.

Plain cold fact: progressive income taxes hit the wealthy harder and sales taxes shift the tax burden to the middle class and poor. Is it any wonder that wealthy people want to live in places that rely on sales taxes and not income taxes? But I would rather pay taxes in LA than live tax free in Orlando.

Plain Cold Fact (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be, probably some amalgamation of cold hard fact): Pragmatist is an idiot.

He would rather pay taxes in L.A., than live in Orlando. From this, I gather that Pragmatist is most likely collecting some soft of welfare, and almost certainly pays no income taxes. You reek of failure and class envy.

They will appeal to the Federal government to bail them out, claiming that the rest of the country has benefited from the things that California has done. They will also play the "oh these poor people, they'll starve if you don't give us money for them" bit.

And, I think right now, they won't get the bailout. The Republican caucus in the House will most likely thumb their noses at CA (along with NY, IL, etc.) pointing out that their states addressed these issue, often with some pain, and why should they pay for these states doubling down on their feckless spending and taxation policies?

CA was lucky for a long time. It had a great climate, great universities, and plenty of natural resources and good farmland. But, I think that it is quite silly to expect everyone else to want to subsidize their profligate ways, which have essentially squandered many of these natural advantages. CA (NY, IL) are in this bad state not because they had natural advantages, but rather, because their natural advantages let them delay the day of reckoning longer than other states were able to.

California (where I subserviently reside for now) relies on about 140,000 high income earners (HIE) for almost 60% of tax revenue. It doesn't take many Mickelson's moving before the whole scheme collapses on Governor Moonbeam and the Too Big To Fail Democrat apparatus in Sacramento. Thus the unholy hellfire of retribution rained on Phil for his apostasy to suggest keeping less than half his income wasn't the best plan for him.

It's a beautiful state that is driving away the people who pay for its goods and services. It is stratifying into only very wealthy and very poor classes. People like Garage who complain about the disappearing middle class and this is why. It takes an income in excess of $100K to BE middle class and yet the State will tax us all as if we were millionaires. While giving FREE or IN-STATE tuition to anyone who hops over the border. You have to be crazy or insanely cl;ever to stay here. Yes it is driving me crazy.

Oh and that budget surplus prediction is an accounting trick by virtue of receipts for JAN exceeding state outlays this month ONLY. We are projecting a deficit equal to or larger than last year's for the remainder. Garage you Dems LOVE fuzzy math, but never want to admit the whole story is fucked up and not rosy at all.

I'm sure you can add it to the vast number of things that you cannot comprehend: Math, economics, history, proper diet, etc.

But your hatred for Mickelson doesn't require comprehension, you are able to do it with raw emotions like envy and the rank inferiority that fuels it. Perhaps you should go back to picking rocks out of sandtraps, you could try and organize a union of golf course workers. That will teach Phil to dare question what percentage of his earnings he gets to keep.

So is "pretty soon" going to occur within 2013? 2014? Oh wait, perhaps I have the answer, is the concept of time also on the list of things you don't comprehend?

My brother ran a truck farm with a friend of his. We laid black plastic, planted, hoed corn, weeded harvested and (the easy part) sold it all in a roadside stand. Rain/shine/hot/cold all day every day except when I was doing my paper route. The pay (when it came) sucked. My boss wasn't as big an asshole as I thought at the time, so I'll give him that.

That depends on how much you have to pay. I'll be leaving L.A. due to taxes plus the fact that every where you go is crowded. I went miles in to the woods last week to walk my dogs and it was like Disneyland with all the people, kids, dogs, horses, bicycles, yapping, noise. It's more peaceful in downtown Orlando than the "wilderness" in L.A.'s mountains, which I used to love. Not to mention that I could have an alligator ranch with a fan boat and feed Gentle Ben there for the price of a small condo in L.A.

As a resident of FL, I say bring it on! Since I moved here I have often observed that the only thing that Florida has to do to rebound is to resist the temptation to implement a state income tax.

Prior the onset of the recession in 2007, forecasts had FL exceeding 20M in population by 2010. Instead, the in-migration slowed as people were locked into their real estate elsewhere, and then current residents of the sunshine state experienced natural attrition, as older folks do.

So, we are still under 20M, but not for much longer. Florida will soon surpass NY and become the 3rd most populous state, and that will be helped a great deal by three things:

1) the relative tax burden in other states; and2) the fact that Article X of the FL Constitution exempts homestead properties from judgment claims. It means that you can plow a lot of coin into a residence here and have rock solid asset protection for that amount; and 3) the weather is fucking fantastic!

G arage. The article you linked and the wuote you plucked from it say two different things. The quote you chose pertained to most wealthy taxpayers whose incomes derive from capital gains. The golfer's income from golf wins is all ordinary income. But you knew that.

G arage. The article you linked and the wuote you plucked from it say two different things. The quote you chose pertained to most wealthy taxpayers whose incomes derive from capital gains. The golfer's income from golf wins is all ordinary income. But you knew that.

The difference between professional golfers and teachers is one keeps score and is paid based on that score. You can't really say a teacher is outstanding or not because we don't keep score. Which is amazing since teaching is one of oldest professions and several teaching organizations do it; such as the Army. Note, that's a K thru 12 statement.

Regardless of Mickelson's top rates, his actual tax bill isn't anywhere near one-half of his income. While it's hard to tell what the golfer really pays without seeing his tax returns, millionaires pay roughly 26% of their income in federal taxes, on average, according to William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation.

The article is SPECULATING on his tax situaion. Without his tax returns it's IMPOSSIBLE to know what he is paying.

You need to work on critical thinking skills.

All of which is beside the point. It's HIS money. He can work to shelter it, give it away, or pay more in taxes. Whatever he prefers.It's-His-Money-To-Do-With-As-He-Pleases. Nothing he is doing is illegal. He isn't taking a dime from you. Christ. You have the reasoning abilities of a child.

So you think Mickelson is paying about 62% of his income in combined local, state, and federal taxes, as he claims?

Yes he does. The average tax rate you quote is meaningless, because people like Warren Buffett, who make their money from investments, have numerous (legal) tax dodges available to them and already pay a much lower capital gains rate. Mickelson's money is treated by the IRS as if he was collecting wages.

California will still try to tax people who leave for low tax states. They tried it with military retirees, claiming that the retirement income was earned in California, so they should be able to tax it. It went to court but I don't know how it came out. Rush Limbaugh has been audited by New York every year since he moved to Florida. I think it's over 15 years now. High tax states don't ever let go.